Planned panhandler law baffles

As the city prepares to move forward tonight with a ban on panhandling, let’s at least stop pretending it’s a safety issue and call it what it is — an unsightliness issue.

Be honest. When you’re stopped at a traffic light, snug behind the wheel and sipping a double latte roast pork rind from Starbucks, a brand I just now made up because I don’t drink coffee and have never been to a Starbucks, what motorist wants to face the disheveled personification of society’s underbelly begging for change? Who wants to endure that awkward moment when the panhandler looks right at you, aargh, and manages to lock eyes, at which point you suddenly become busy with the tuner on your car stereo, even though you were already listening to a really good song?

Besides, the city’s downtown is on the move, a phrase in which Worcester boosters tend to drum into our collective head, frequently at gunpoint, and it’s not as if these panhandlers are saving up for a spin around the oval behind City Hall. Poor people simply fail to share our civil spirit; as far as they’re concerned, the long-awaited reopening of Front Street is just another business opportunity.

I’ve been hesitant to address the panhandler issue because I see both sides of the debate. Snideness aside, I sympathize with leaders who fear that a proliferation of panhandlers will hurt businesses and whatever passes for the city’s image. To pump all sorts of money and time into sprucing up downtown, only to have it overrun with vagrants, would be as bizarre as someone like Jodie Foster showing up at the Golden Globes with Mel Gibson. Wait — what? That really happened?

Anyway, I get it. But I also understand the objections of advocates for the homeless and civil liberties groups, who argue that bans on panhandlers go too far, violate free speech and fail to address the root causes of homelessness, substance abuse and mental illness.

Tonight, the City Council will vote on ordinances that would ban panhandlers from begging while walking in traffic, standing on a traffic island, standing in the street or breathing oxygen into their lungs. I made up that last one, but you get the idea. On a positive note, the ordinances would also eliminate “tag days,” in which charities and youth sports groups solicit money from motorists.

Hear, hear, because these kids are more of a nuisance and public safety threat than panhandlers. It’s the kids who weave in and out of traffic, bang on your car window and screech for cash like Honey Boo Boo. Panhandlers, on the other hand, tend to stand passively at intersections, holding signs and looking insolvent.

I tried to read the proposed panhandling ordinance and a multi-page attachment, but it was written by City Manager Michael O’Brien and I fell asleep. (“This approach involved a number of strategies to engage individuals but was critical for building relationships and developing trust to facilitate information sharing and assistance.”) I’m a journalist, after all, not a saint.

But I believe it’s disingenuous to term certain panhandling actions as “aggressive,” such as holding a sign near a place of public assembly. And several recent legal decisions have upheld the panhandlers’ right to free speech.

In 2005, the city erected billboards urging people not to donate to panhandlers because most will only buy alcohol, cigarettes or drugs. Now the councilors are getting tough.

In a way, I don’t blame them. This is a city, not a refugee camp, and we’re shooting for a veneer of respectability, if not sophistication.

Personally, though, I just can’t get excited about our leaders stretching the law under the questionable guise of public safety, all to “protect” us from society’s most vulnerable citizens. But I’m frankly torn, because I don’t have the answer, either.